ArticleJournal of neuro-oncology2026
Early experience with cerebrospinal fluid cell-free DNA molecular profiling in a neuro-oncology practice.
Article in Journal of neuro-oncology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
22 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposeCerebrospinal fluid (CSF) cell-free DNA (cfDNA) is increasingly used as a liquid biopsy in neuro-oncology for diagnosing lesions of uncertain etiology, distinguishing progression from pseudoprogression, and ruling out leptomeningeal disease (LMD). We assessed our institution's early experience with a new CSF cfDNA molecular profiling assay for detecting variant alleles (VA) and copy-number alterations (CNA) across these indications in our neuro-oncology practice.
methodsBeginning in August 2021, providers could request research CSF cfDNA sequencing from clinically indicated lumbar punctures. Following extraction, targeted next-generation sequencing (NGS) and/or low-pass whole-genome sequencing (LPWGS) were performed. VAs and CNAs were summarized by indication and integrated with clinical features, cfDNA yield, matched tissue data, and overall survival.
resultsCSF samples from seventy-six consecutive patients were analyzed and retrospectively classified into three categories: lesions of uncertain etiology (46%), question of CNS progression (21%), or ruling out LMD (26%). Median cfDNA yield was 0.27 ng/mL (IQR = 0.05-0.61 ng/mL). VA and/or CNA detection, hereafter designated "tumor calls," were identified in 20 patients (26%), with 29 patients having negative tumor calls (38%) and 27 patients (36%) having insufficient cfDNA yield/quality. A copy number burden threshold of 7.42 accurately identified tumor-specific CNAs (AUC 0.998) and was associated with poorer survival (HR 3.4, p = 0.006). Overall survival for patients with positive tumor calls was significantly lower than for patients with negative tumor calls or low yield (p = 0.003).
conclusionDespite low cfDNA abundance, CSF NGS and LPWGS provide informative data across neuro-oncologic indications. Further work is underway to optimize the assays for low input CSF cfDNA.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.